This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So if some high ranking politician for some reason started to look up dirt on you to fight in court, you think it would be OK? It's not direct violence, sure, but I think it way over "rants over social media". I'm objecting that part
No, it won't be OK because I am not a high ranking politician. But if I run for a position with significant power and responsibility, yes, then it would not only be OK, it would be completely expected and is routinely happening. That is not the reason I do not commit fraud, but if I did commit fraud, I would expect this to be revealed if I try to get into the position of power. In fact, I want this happening as much as possible, so I could be reasonable sure people who are in the position of power and don't have any crime discovered about them are actually not criminal. The idea that if somebody is a politician then they are above scrutiny and any crime revealed about them must be dismissed because it's just "dirt" is the exact opposite of what I want to happen, and the exact opposite of what should be happening in a normally functioning democracy.
This can not be used as an example of Trump intimidating his enemies into silence - because it only applies to those of his enemies who are criminals (or at least can be reasonably argued to be criminals) and it's a direct responsibility of the executive branch to prosecute criminals. I do not think that the majority of Trump's opponents are criminals, so those of them who are not criminals would not have any fear of being accused in mortgage fraud - and to confirm, I don't know of anybody who had been baselessly accused of mortgage fraud as means of intimidation. True, being an active opponent may raise the chances of scrutiny and thus the chances of the crime being revealed, but the primary cause there is the crime, not intimidation. I want the criminals to be intimidated, and I do not want them to escape unpunished, whatever political persuasion they are.
Fair enough, would you change mind when it's not a politician? 60 Minutes, WSJ
I don't think it should be dissmissed. But I do think that it shouldn't be politically motivated either. What would change your mind that is intimidation mostly?
No, because I am still not a high ranking politician. Deep personal scrutiny of high ranking politicians is an absolutely normal, moreover -necessary thing. With great power comes great responsibility. This responsibility, and attached scrutiny, is voluntarily accepted when the person wants to achieve the position of power. I do not hold a position of power and thus do not welcome scrutiny. If and when I will be (never!), then I would change my mind, and only then.
That's baloney - of course friends would not investigate friends, and if the politicians can't be scrutinized when the other party is in power, where that leaves us? Who would scrutinize them, and when? We can investigate Democrat criminals only if Obama personally approves, otherwise it's "politically motivated"? Nonsense. Part of the politics is keeping it clean (ok, clean-er) by attacking opposition politics who are dirty - because their own party definitely wouldn't attack them. This is A GOOD THING! That's the only way get at least some of the corrupt politicians down - the competition between politicians would make them use the dirt to attack those who are dirty, and thus hopefully push them out of the field and diminish the amount of dirt. This is how the competitive politics is supposed to work! It's not some dirty trick that we must condemn. It's the only thing standing between us and permanent oligarchy that usurps totalitarian power and never lets it go.
Not sure I understand the question. Criminals being intimidated is a good thing. Honest people being intimidated is not a good thing. If you don't want to be subject to intimidation, maybe not committing mortgage fraud is a good starting point? It's not that hard, a lot of people manage it - but somehow, for prominent Demorcrats it's even harder than understanding why socialism doesn't work.
I assume that you view WSJ and 60 secods having similar ammounts of power as high rankin politician, so they should handle the lawfare?
I wouldn't mind if Trump went "ok, time for clean up" and started suing. But doing it only after they push against Trump is intimidation.
But again, the original context was "Trump never does anything, just rants". And it is seems you aprove that nowadays he does more than just rants
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link